Civil Action Cover Sheet - Case Initation

(05/27/16) CCL 0520

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
BOW TRUSS COFFEE ROASTERS
No.

v.

ALAN MATTHEW
CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET - CASE INITIATION
A Civil Action Cover Sheet - Case Initiation shall be filed with the
complaint in all civil actions. Th e information contained herein
is for administrative purposes only and cannot be introduced into
evidence. Please check the box in front of the appropriate case
type which best characterizes your action. Only one (1) case type
may be checked with this cover sheet.
Jury Demand

Yes

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
CALENDAR: Z
CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LAW DIVISION
CLERK DOROTHY BROWN

No

PERSONAL INJURY/WRONGFUL DEATH

CASE TYPES:
027
040
047
048
049
051

052
053
061
063
064
065
078
199

Motor Vehicle
Medical Malpractice
Asbestos
Dram Shop
Product Liability
Construction Injuries
( including Structural Work Act, Road
Construction Injuries Act and Negligence)
Railroad/FELA
Pediatric Lead Exposure
Other Personal Injury/Wrongful Death
Intentional Tort
Miscellaneous Statutory Action
( Please Specify Below**)
Premises Liability
Fen-phen/Redux Litigation
Silicone Implant

TAX & MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIES

CASE TYPES:
007 Confession Of Judgment
008 Replevin
009 Tax
015 Condemnation
017 Detinue
029 Unemployment Compensation
031 Foreign Transcript
036 Administrative Review Action
085 Petition to Register Foreign Judgment
099 All Other Extraordinary Remedies
By:
(Attorney)

/s THOMAS EDWARD PATTERSON

(ProSe)

(FILE STAMP)
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
CASE TYPES:
002 Breach of Contract
070 Professional Malpractice
(other than legal or medical)
071 Fraud (other than legal or medical)
072 Consumer Fraud
073 Breach of Warranty
074 Statutory Action
( Please Specify Below**)
075 Other Commercial Litigation
( Please Specify Below**)
076 Retaliatory Discharge
OTHER ACTIONS
CASE TYPES:
062
066
077
079
084
100

Property Damage
Legal Malpractice
Libel/Slander
Petition for Qualified Orders
Petition to Issue Subpoena
Petition for Discovery

**
Primary Email:

cmarte@pattersonlawfirm.com

Secondary Email:

esparks@pattersonlawfirm.com

Tertiary Email:

trizzo@pattersonlawfirm.com

Pro Se Only:
I have read and agree to the terms of the the Clerks Offi ce Electronic Notice Policy and choose to opt in to electronic notice
form the Clerks Office for this case at this email address:
DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
CALENDAR: Z
PAGE 1 of 28
CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LAW DIVISION
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISIONCLERK DOROTHY BROWN
Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and
Philip Tadros, individually and
derivatively as a Bow Truss
unitholder,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Alan Matthew,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.
Jury Trial Demanded

Complaint
Plaintiffs, Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and Philip Tadros, individually and
derivatively as a Bow Truss unitholder, by and through their counsel,
Patterson Law Firm, LLC, complain of Defendant, Alan Matthew, as
follows:
Introduction
1.

This is an action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty, false light,

and defamation per se against Defendant, Alan Matthew (Mr. Matthew),

a serial investor in high-risk start-up companies.
2.

Plaintiff, Philip Tadros (Mr. Tadros), is an entrepreneur who has

founded, among other things, the successful line of coffee shops, Bow
Truss Coffee Roasters (Bow Truss), and brewpub, Aquanaut Brewing
Company.

3.

Mr. Matthew has been a business associate of Mr. Tadros and an

investor in Bow Truss, among other projects and businesses launched by

Mr. Tadros, for a period spanning more than three years.
4.

Unfortunately, the relationship between Mr. Tadros and Mr.

Matthew began to sour when Mr. Matthew apparently became

dissatisfied with the return on his investmentseither impatient with the
timing of the return on an investment or frustrated with the overall
success of an inherently risky venture.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 2 of 28

5.

Mr. Matthews frustrations grew when Mr. Tadros resisted Mr.

Matthews attempts to improperly meddle in the operations of Mr. Tadros

businesses.
6.

Eventually, Mr. Matthew began to publically criticize Mr. Tadros

and Bow Truss. Mr. Matthew also disclosed confidential documents that
were otherwise only available to officers and investors of Mr. Tadros
businesses. Mr. Matthew also further attacked Bow Truss and Mr.
Tadros by misleading the public with knowingly false statements about
Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros.
7.

The public disclosure of these documents and false statements

substantially compromised the posture of several of these fledgling

businesses in the highly competitive start-up environment.
8.

Mr. Matthew, an experienced and savvy start-up investor, was

fully aware of the damage he would cause to Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros
through the public disclosure of these confidential documents and false
2

statements. As a result of Mr. Matthews disclosures and false

statements, Bow Truss lost numerous major accounts, including Hilton,
Merchandise Mart, University of Chicago, and Whole Foods.
9.

Through his disclosures and false statements, Mr. Matthew (1)

breached the duties he owed to Bow Truss and to Mr. Tadros, (2)
damaged the reputations of Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros, and (3) injured
the emotional well-being of Mr. Tadros.
10. Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros have brought the present action in

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 3 of 28

order to recover the damages they have suffered as a direct result of Mr.
Matthews actions.
The Parties
1.

Plaintiff, Bow Truss Coffee Roasters, is a Chicago-based company

located at 3128 North Broadway Street.

2.

Plaintiff, Philip Tadros, is an individual whose residence is located

within the state of Illinois. Mr. Tadros is the founder and owner of Bow
Truss. At all times relevant to the claims contained herein, Mr. Tadros
has been and remains a Bow Truss unitholder.
3.

Defendant, Alan Matthew, is an individual whose residence is

located within the state of Illinois. At all times relevant to the claims
contained herein, Mr. Matthew has been a Bow Truss unitholder.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4.

Jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to Section 9 of Article VI of

the Illinois Constitution.

3

5.

Venue is appropriate pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101.

General Allegations
6.

Mr. Matthew has a history of aggressively pursuing investment

opportunities, both generally and specifically with regard to Mr. Tadros

projects and businesses. A true and accurate copy of Mr. Matthews
website, Tribal Ventures: Investing in Chicago Start Ups, is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
7.

Since 2012, Mr. Matthew has invested in at least four of Mr.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 4 of 28

Tadros projects and businesses, including Bow Truss, MeUngry,

Tagyoureit, and Map of the Dead (MOTD), often aggressively pursuing
early opportunities to invest and be involved.
8.

For instance, following Mr. Matthews initial investment in MOTD,

he subsequently demanded additional equity and threatened to block

pitches to venture capital firms unless his demand was granted.
9.

Seth Kravitz (Mr. Kravitz), another early Bow Truss investor,

expected to receive investment money from Mr. Matthew for one of his
own projects, and Mr. Matthew leveraged this relationship to persuade
Mr. Kravitz to back Mr. Matthews demand for additional equity. As a
result, Mr. Matthews demand for additional equity in MOTD was
granted. This interaction is demonstrative of Mr. Matthews aggressive
approach to start-up investing.
10. Bow Truss was launched in June of 2012, and, within a year of
its launch, Mr. Matthew had invested $25,000.
4

11. As one of a small group of early investors in Bow Truss, Mr.

Matthew had otherwise exclusive access to Bow Truss organizational,
financial, and strategic documents and information.
12. By 2013, Mr. Matthew had become critical of the way Bow Truss
was being managed, publically criticizing the company on social media
and falsely suggesting that a minority unitholder should be consulted on
matters that did not and do not require any such consultation. See true
and accurate screenshot from Facebook, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 5 of 28

13. In 2014, Mr. Matthew requested and received Bow Truss

complete accounting records and bank statements. Mr. Matthew had
been a long-time Bow Truss investor by that time and could have and
should have raised any valid concerns he may have had at that time.
14. Mr. Matthew expressed no concerns with regard to Bow Truss
accounting in 2014.
15. In August of 2015, after it had become apparent that Mr.
Matthew may not have been satisfied with his investment in Bow Truss,
he was offered a full buyout of his investment. See true and accurate
copy of August 31, 2015, letter to Mr. Matthew, attached hereto as
Exhibit C. Enclosed with the buyout letter was a check for $25,000.
16. On September 10, 2015, Mr. Matthew noted in an email that he
had voided the buyout check and would be returning it. See true and
accurate copy of September 10, 2015, email from Mr. Matthew, attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
5

17. On July 9, 2016, Crains Chicago Business (Crains), a weekly

business newspaper in Chicago, published an article entitled, One of
Chicagos most connected entrepreneurs has made more than a few
enemies. A true and accurate copy of the July 9, 2016, article is
attached hereto as Exhibit E.
18. In the article, Mr. Matthew is quoted as having said that the
money he invested in MOTD is gone, that Bow Truss operating
agreement requires Bow Truss to provide financial data to investors, and

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 6 of 28

that Bow Truss has refused to provide Mr. Matthew with this data. Ex. E
at 2.
19. All three of these statements are false.
20. The article was also written with reliance on Bow Truss
confidential financial and accounting information. Only a Bow Truss
officer or investor would have had access to this information.
21. On information and belief, Mr. Matthew disclosed this
information to Crains.
22. On July 10, 2016, one day after publication of the Crains article,
Mr. Matthew continued publically attacking Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros
on social media, sharing the hyperlink to the Crains article and
suggesting that Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros were in violation of laws
requiring intervention by the IRS. See true and accurate screenshot of
Mr. Matthews Twitter account, attached hereto as Exhibit F.

23. Mr. Matthews suggestions of illegality were then and remain

false.
24. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Matthews disclosures,
knowingly false public statements, and knowingly false and misleading
public suggestions, Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros have suffered damages.
Count I Breach of Fiduciary Duty
25. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 7 of 28

26. As a Bow Truss unitholder, Mr. Matthew owed to Bow Truss the
fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and honesty.
27. These same fiduciary duties prohibited Mr. Matthew from
enhancing his personal interests at the expense of the interests of Bow
Truss or its other unitholders, including Mr. Tadros.
28. Mr. Matthew breached his fiduciary duties to Bow Truss and to
Mr. Tadros by publically disclosing confidential documents and
subsequently making knowingly false statements about Bow Truss and
Mr. Tadros to members of the media with the knowledge and expectation
that those statements would be reported publically.
29. Mr. Matthew also breached his fiduciary duties to Bow Truss and
to Mr. Tadros by publically suggesting through social media (1) that Bow
Truss and Mr. Tadros had failed to consult Bow Truss minority
unitholders and (2) that Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros, through their
operation of Bow Truss, had violated United States law.
7

30. Both suggestions were knowingly false.

31. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Matthews breach of
fiduciary duties, Bow Truss has lost revenue and capital investments in
an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
32. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Matthews breach of
fiduciary duties, Mr. Tadros, both individually and as a Bow Truss
unitholder, has suffered damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and Philip

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 8 of 28

Tadros, individually and derivatively as a Bow Truss unitholder,

respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and
against Defendant, Alan Matthew, for compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial but no less than $50,000.00, for interest,
costs, and fees as appropriate, and for all other relief this Court deems
just and appropriate.
Count II False Light
33. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
34. At some time during or before July of 2016, Mr. Matthew provided
statements to certain media outlets, including Crains Chicago Business,
a weekly business newspaper in Chicago.
35. Among these statements, Mr. Matthew made a series of false
statements about Mr. Tadros, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. That money invested in Mr. Tadros companies was gone.
8

36. Mr. Matthews statements were and are false.

37. Mr. Matthew also falsely suggested publically through social
media (1) that Mr. Tadros had failed to consult minority unitholders
when no such duty or requirement existed and (2) that Bow Truss and
Mr. Tadros, through their operation of Bow Truss, had violated United
States law.
38. Because Mr. Matthews false statements were made with the
intention of impeaching Mr. Tadros honesty, integrity, and reputation

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 9 of 28

and damaging his ability to earn income, a reasonable person would take
offense to these statements.
39. In his statements, Mr. Matthew specifically identified Mr. Tadros,
and the statements were made to the public with the knowledge and
expectation that they would be broadcast publically on a mass level.
40. Mr. Matthews false and defamatory statements were made with
actual malice for the purpose of wrongfully damaging the reputation of
Mr. Tadros.
41. As a direct result of Mr. Matthews false and defamatory
statements, Mr. Tadros has suffered monetary damages in addition to
the emotional distress caused by Mr. Matthews statements.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and Philip
Tadros, individually and derivatively as a Bow Truss unitholder,
respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and
against Defendant, Alan Matthew, for compensatory damages in an
9

amount to be proven at trial but no less than $50,000.00, for punitive

damages in a sum sufficient to deter similar future misconduct, and for
all other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
Count III Defamation Per Se
42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
43. At some time during or before July of 2016, Mr. Matthew provided
statements to certain media outlets, including Crains Chicago Business,

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 10 of 28

a weekly business newspaper in Chicago.

44. Among these statements, Mr. Matthew made a series of false
statements about Bow Truss and about Mr. Tadros, including, but not
limited to, the following:
a. That Bow Truss was obligated under its operating agreement
to provide the companys financial data to Mr. Matthew;
b. That Bow Truss failed to meet such a requirement; and
c. That money invested in Mr. Tadros other companies was
gone.
45. Mr. Matthews statements were and are false.
a. The Bow Truss operating agreement does not require Bow
Truss to provide the companys financial data to Mr.
Matthew;
b. Bow Truss could not have failed to meet a requirement that
did not exist; and
10

c. Mr. Tadros maintains candid communication with his

investors regarding the status of their investments.
46. Mr. Matthew also falsely suggested publically through social
media (1) that Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros had failed to consult minority
unitholders when no such duty or requirement existed and (2) that Bow
Truss and Mr. Tadros, through their operation of Bow Truss, had
violated United States law.
47. Mr. Matthews statements were knowingly made despite their

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 11 of 28

falsity and for the purpose of wrongfully damaging the reputation of Bow
Truss and Mr. Tadros and obstructing Mr. Tadros ability to obtain
investment capital in the future.
48. Mr. Matthews false and defamatory statements constitute
defamation per se.
a. Mr. Matthew made these statements with the intention of
impeaching Mr. Tadros honesty, integrity, and reputation.
b. Mr. Matthews false and defamatory statements greatly
damaged the reputations of Bow Truss and Mr. Tadros,
which, in turn, damaged their ability to earn income.
49. Mr. Matthews false and defamatory statements were made by Mr.
Matthew with knowledge of their falsity and with actual malice, justifying
an award of punitive damages.

11

50. As a direct result of Mr. Matthews false and defamatory

statements, Bow Truss has suffered actual damages in the form of lost
revenue and capital investments in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and Philip
Tadros, individually and derivatively as a Bow Truss unitholder,
respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and
against Defendant, Alan Matthew, for compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial but no less than $50,000.00, for punitive

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 12 of 28

damages in a sum sufficient to deter similar future misconduct, and for

all other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
Demand for Jury Trial
51. Plaintiffs, Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and Philip Tadros,
individually and derivatively as a Bow Truss unitholder, demand a jury
trial on all issues so triable.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: October 31, 2016

/s/Jefferey O. Katz
Jefferey Ogden Katz
Eric J. Chisholm
Patterson Law Firm, LLC
One North LaSalle St., Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60602
jkatz@pattersonlawfirm.com
echisholm@pattersonlawfirm.com
Tel. 312-223-1699
Fax. 312-223-8549
Firm I.D.: 45052
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and
Philip Tadros, individually and
derivatively as a Bow Truss
unitholder,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Alan Matthew,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.
Jury Trial Demanded

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 13 of 28

Affidavit Pursuant To Supreme Court Rule 222(b)

I, Jefferey Katz, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state as
follows:
1. I am an attorney for Plaintiffs, Bow Truss Coffee Roasters and
Philip Tadros, in this cause.
2. The total amount of money damages sought in this cause exceeds
$50,000.
Further, affiant sayeth naught.
Date: October 31, 2016

/s/Jefferey O. Katz
Jefferey Ogden Katz
Patterson Law Firm, LLC
One North LaSalle St., Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel. 312-223-1699
Fax. 312-223-8549

13

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 14 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 15 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 16 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 17 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 18 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 19 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 20 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 21 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 22 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 23 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 24 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 25 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 26 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 27 of 28

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2016 2:33 PM
2016-L-010723
PAGE 28 of 28